Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Suggested merge

Crumplezone and Safeguard (Transformers) have been nominated to be merged with appropriate character lists. NotARealWord (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion nominations of transformers

A HUGE number of transformer articles are up for delete review. (The list is is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers centralized discussion). As an experiment, perhaps there could be a new kind of !vote called "Merge as decided by centralized discussion", but that is just a thought. —CodeHydro 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, more reaonably, you could ignore the "centralised discussion" and participate in the actually deletion requests. I also trust you're perfectly capable of making a judgement about the articles without doing what CodeHydro tells you... J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Oops, badly worded... I simply intended to point out that "decide by centralized discussion" (without merging article) could be an option, but was sloppy in implementing it. I meant merge as in merge the discussion... sigh... too much in a hurry to post this —CodeHydro 14:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More delete nominations

NotARealWord (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What can be done to improve Transformers articles?

Since there are glut of Transformers articles been nominated for deletion or mergers I think what highlights is that many of the articles relating to Transformers articles need significant improvement like reliable third person sourcing. A lot article date from Wikipedia's "I-saw-it-on-TV" days, when a great deal of the submissions were detailed descriptions of the plot of a TV episode, extensive biographies of a characters or aspects like these examples.


Articles like these are an example.

Does Cybertron need three separate articles

Carbombya a minor facet of the 80s cartoon

Transmetal Driver no reliable third person sources

Zodiac Energy no reliable third person sources Dwanyewest (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Carbombia is central to the contraversary of Casey Casam leaving voice acting in the Transformers. The Cybertrons could be merged though. I didn't even know there were three articles. Mathewignash (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should go with the suggestions previously stated on this talk page. As suggested in the "My cleanup suggestions" "Character article clean up" sections currently on this page. Wikipedia seriously does not need its Transformers articles to be the way they currently are. There's no need to summarise a character's involvements in every single continuity. Maybe those "other incarnations" sections should be merged back into the main articles. There's just too much fancruft as it is. NotARealWord (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge Cybertron articles

It has been proposed that the many articles on that planet be merged. Discussion is at Talk:Cybertron#Merge discussion. NotARealWord (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Too much dead wood and no sourced material

I think there are too many poorly sourced article on Transformers. I think there needs to an agreed standard on what are reliable sources for Transformers so I have taken it too "Reliable sources for Transformers" to see if it can a more unbiased opinion. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted articles

On September 4, the following articles were deleted (Links are for the archived deletion discussions):

Please do not recreate them unless you think that doing so is compliant with Wikipedia's requirements. NotARealWord (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

NotARealWord (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet some more AfDs:

NotARealWord (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some more articles nominated for deletion
-NotARealWord (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Blaster (Transformers) has been nominated, and I have added some major citations from books that reference Blaster in culture. One talking about the roll he has in the story and the symbolism of his alternate mode, another from a book that talks about Jazz and Blaster being voiced as "black" robot characters. Mathewignash (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

These nominated also. Looking through the list of all Transformer articles to see which ones are currently nominated, is a rather tedious task. I posted on the talk page of two of the current mass nominators to ask they post here to inform us when they nominate these sorts of articles. Dream Focus 00:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • The one thing that I hare when the pages are deleted is that I can't get a copy of the text that was there. Even if the page isn't going to be on WIkipedia any more, I could use the text for my own web site or some other wiki. Is there a way for me to get a copy of a deleted page's text for personal use? Mathewignash (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export will save the articles, history and all. I commonly save manga articles that are up for deletion, and then import them to the http://manga.wikia.com where I am currently in charge. There is a Transformer wiki at http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page which has all of these articles already though, so you can normally find the information there. If you see anything in an article up for deletion that isn't, you can copy it over, as I recently did [1]. You can also ask the deleting administrator to userfy the article on your user page, which they will sometimes do. Dream Focus 00:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The information on Wikipedia is often more up to date. Thanks! I don't see how to get the page I need though. Say I want the text of the page Ark (Transformers) - what do I do? Mathewignash (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
If its already been deleted, talk to the person who deleted it, and say "Please userfy this on my talk page so I can work on improving it". They'll copy what was there before, to your talk page. Dream Focus 01:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Or ask any administrator you know, or ask for the text at WP:REFUND... Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Even more AfDs:

-NotARealWord (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeta Prime NotARealWord (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

AFDs

I've nominated Bumblebee (Transformers) for deletion. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AFDs

I have nominated Constructicons for deletion. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AFDs

I have nominated Grimlock for deletion. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a standard Transformers article supposed to look like?

Because clearly there is too much cruft, poor sourcing but we have to decide what kinds do we have to do. I say lets start with getting rid of bad sources on the major articles such as Optimus Prime (Transformers), Megatron, Rodimus Dwanyewest (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please define "fancruft" and point out specific examples in the talk pages for the articles, so we can remove this evil substance together? Mathewignash (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Optimus Prime is best example of sections with what I feel is unnecessary stuff. Of course my opinion will have no impact or make any difference to You Mathewignash.


  1. The section unofficial toys section is loaded with as sources that are unreliable.[2]
  2. [3]Other appearances is a huge laundry list of supposed appearances of Optimus Prime which are are cultural references or appearances in other media many aren't sourced. For example Optimus Prime appeared in Scrubs OK I am sure that is true but what episodes did he appear and where are the sources to substantiate it. I fear such things if they can't be adequately sourced fall under WP:TRIVIA
  3. [4]Opitmus Primes Toys section doesn't have independent and reliable sources. With sources such as this [5] [6] but then you probably think they are good sources. I said my peace that is all if you read this I will put it of Optimus Prime. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
A negative attitude isn't helpful. As for sources of the appearances in fiction. If you check the history of the page I believe there was mention of the episode and how Optimus appeared on Scrubs. Someone deleted it! I'd love to see them readded. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Optimus_Prime_(Transformers)&oldid=207814298 As for the toys, I'd say primary sources are enough that something EXISTS for that list. Mathewignash (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Time and time again I have PROVEN that the sources are neither reliable See:"Reliable sources for Transformers" but it doesn't support your view. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Plus User:Mathewignash you seem to wilfully ignore wikipedia policy on Primary Sources.WP:PRIMARY. It clearly states Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation Dwanyewest (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, why do Transformers character articles need toy lists anyway? That's nothing but pure fancruft right there. Oh, Ignash, fancruft is information that would only interest a fan of the subject. And yes those cameos should be in an appearance in other media section. This is what is helping Prime's nobility. I have a source for the Scrubs episode and a few others. I refrained from adding anything new until I felt I could edit freely with this so-called lock by Mr. Ignash. Sarujo (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where you get off making comments like that about me. I hardly keep the articles under an edit lock. Dwanyewest(under an anon IP) and re-wrote the Optimus Prime page, deleting sections without ANY talk, and making the page NOT follow the format from the wiki project. I reverted it. Maybe he should have proposed a major change in the format instead of just implimenting it? Mathewignash (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
And you are? If you are a member of this project, then your job is to respond to editor propositions at an early convenience and reach a reasonable consensus on the best COA. Which I will keep bring up - you haven't. I have brought this up twice on the admin board. Here and here. The later I suggest you respond to. Yes, stonewalling productive edits to an article is locking no mater how you look at it.
Oh by the way Dwanyewest, I seem to forget about my copy of the Megatron article I worked on in my sandbox that got very little attention. Besides lead and more sources, how will it hold? I can guarantee that I have some sources there that will really contribute to Prime. Getting source for a lot of those television appearances is a snap. But there are some like the ticker that might need some deep digging. I'm surprised that there's no mention about the cultural impact of Prime's death in the 1986 film. The fact that children locking themselves in their closets should be the first thing that got added the moment that was made public escapes me. Maybe something can be mentioned in Megatron seeing as he pulled the trigger. Sarujo (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
If I may give some input, that Megatron seems to be centered on the 1984-85 animated series and the movie. Is it your intent to make the article only cover the TV show character, and not other stories of Megatron? (4 different major comic companies, and all the Japanese stuff, for instance.) Mathewignash (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think listing toys is necessary. There's no toy list on Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe), or Tommy Oliver. The Gundam (mobile suit) article doesn't seem to have a list of model kits made. Although mentioning that Optimus Prime had lots of toys of him would be necessary. NotARealWord (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Really the only toy worth any attention in any of the original character articles, are the original Diaclone and Microman toys, as they played a huge role in their conception. Which would belong in the development section. This is all that is needed for toy information.
Since the original toy was released, many other Megatron toys have been released. Some have featured him with different alternate forms such as tanks, jets, cars and mundane things like a tennis shoe. The Classics and Masterpiece toys revamp and re-imagins his original form to a more higher quality of articulation. Megatron has also had many non transforming toys from such lines as the Heroes of Cybertron, Revoltech, and Mighty Muggs. Some of which are fully poseable, while others are entirely stationary. Sarujo (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
(At Sarujo)That can work. It's short and informative. Maybe articles should have relevant link(s) to TFWiki. Seems to pass the requirement at Wikipedia:External links that a wiki should have "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". NotARealWord (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little too skidish when it comes to those two Wikias. Lets see what others will say. Sarujo (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
TFWiki is not hosted by Wikia. It's run by David Willis. What problem do you have with it? NotARealWord (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing really, I really don't see how linking that site will help as it's an afterthought. Unless, maybe it could devert the flash flood. That's my only analogy.
Also, look at what I found. Interviews with Cullen and Welker talking about how they first got their roles. Perfect for development. Sarujo (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
[7] and there some good stuff of IGN, Comic Book Resources and Mania.com Dwanyewest (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Article sections

Here's my idea on organizing a character article.

  • Start with short introduction
  • ==Development of character==
How the character came about, what Diaclone/Microman/whatnot toy was the basis for the character.
  • ==Fiction==
Section deals with prominent appearances in TF fiction
  • ===Marvel Comics===
  • ===Sunbow animated series===
  • ===Japanese Genereation 1 continuity===
  • ===Unicron Trilogy anime====
  • ===IDW Publishing===
  • ===Transformers Animated====
  • ===Shattered Glass===
  • ===(And so on)===
Notice that I don't make much distinction between "continuity families". At present articles (like Soundwave) separate the different incarnations by first-level header and even separate toys by "continuity family". I believe all continuities should be covered under fiction. The current separation makes it seem like they're all different characters (see the sections on Grimlock),even if they're not. Also, fiction sections should note personality differences. Voice actors can be noted in appropriate sections like "Sunbow animated series" and so on. Fair use pictures should go in the appropriate section.
  • ===Other continuities===
This section (still under fiction) covers continuities in which the character has a very minor role. maybe even note Transformers-related cameos. Continuities in which the character wasn't relevant don't need their own sections
  • ==Video game appearances==
Mention relevant video games the character was in.
  • ==Toys==
Section summarises the various toys and merchandise made for the character. No need to list them individually or separate them by "continuity family". Just summarize the action figures and collectibles in one or two paragraphs. Maybe put some photos that are released under public domain or some copyleft license(s). "Unofficial" stuff like fan-made toys and knockoffs don't need to be mentioned.
  • ==Other uses within Transformers==
Unrelated characters with the same name (like Beast Wars mutant Soundwave of Robots in Disguise Grimlock) can be mentioned in a section like this so we don't end up with articles which about separate and unrelated characters. Mentions should be brief.
  • ==Reception==
How the character fared in polls, what relevant critics say, maybe mention relevant internet memes, etc.
  • ==In other media==
Cameo appearances outside Transformers
  • ==References==
  • ==External links==
Relevant websites, the TF Hall of fame videos (for those that have them, TFWiki.
Also, no need for miscallenious notes.

That's it I think. -NotARealWord (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, before external links there is suppose to be a reference section where the {{reflist}} goes which will automatically display the references and sources used in the article. As the sources acumulate, you change it to {{reflist|1}}, |2, |3, and so forth. Sarujo (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Anything else I forgot? Also, updated the above with references section. Does it look good now? If it does, maybe it can be put on the main project page as a guide. NotARealWord (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Toys, video games, and so forth would be better as paragraphs under marketing or other media. Also not every classic character debuted in Marvel. Hot Rod/Rodimus, Ultra Magnus, Arcee for example got their start in the 1986 film. But then again, how are their nobilities holding up? Sarujo (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The continuity sections can be arranged in any order deemed appropriate. Not sure about "nobility" (did you mean notability?). I think toys should get their own section considering the nature of Transformers. If you have a better idea, can you please show me? Also, some helpful Wikipedia guidelines/policies (if any) would be nice. NotARealWord (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I've never payed that much attention to that spelling, and my spell check told me it was right. Anyway, the most helpful and useful guideline to use here is MOS, not, notability, reliable sources, article size, and lead for the lead section.
Also, I've notice a recurring theme here in these deletion discussions, that everybody in favor of keep, mostly Ignash, thinks that delete/redirect/merge is death sentence. The only way that it will ever be is if the all known combination of the name is locked by an admin. Ultra Magnus stand to be merged of redirected. the only reliable source for that article is the first two, USA Today and Wired Magazine. Sarujo (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Anything along the lines of "How to write about a specific fictional character"? I specifically would like to know how to arrange the different sections (see the title of this section). NotARealWord (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There are fiction, MOS fiction, and fiction notability. There maybe more. Sarujo (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like the general outline - Instead of fiction, maybe the section "Fictional Biography". Although I'm still hesitant to lump some of the continuties together. You make the example of Grimlock. While he's the Dinobot T-Rex with the speech impediment in MOST continuities, do you lump Robots in Disguise Grimlock in with the rest? He has nothing to do with the other Grimlocks really besides being an Autobot with that name - He's an Autobot construction vehicle, part of their Build Team. Does he get merged in with the other Grimlocks, get his own page (which may end up deleted for lack of notability) or a second section or note at the bottom of the Grimlock page? Mathewignash (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK nobody can agree what parts can reedited. What parts are cruft that EVERYBODY can agree to get rid off? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The format of the page and what information should be kept are really two different debates. Mathewignash (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
One thing we should avoid is making one page about different characters. The "other uses" section in my proposal addresses that issue. I'm not really sure about what article format is appropriate, considering how Transformers has loads of canonj continuities and no "main" universe. NotARealWord (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, is there any guideline on fictional characters that have parts in loads of canon continuities, with no "main" one? Cos I think we don't see that very much outside Transformers. NotARealWord (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fancruft

This stuff, is what I think is definitely TF Fancruft

  • Listing every single toy ever made for a character instead of just having 2-6 sentences describing the action figures and collectibles.
  • Having a separate section for a continuity in which the character didn't do anything important. Like this :
===Dreamwave comics===
Exemplar-kun cameoed in issue 2 of The War Within. He was standing between Inferno and Bluestreak.
  • Pseudocanon, unless the article is about the author.
  • Fan speculation, fanon and fanfic, especially fanfic
  • Excessively detailed synopses. Although I'm not sure how detailed is excessively.
  • Having articles for minor characters.
  • Having articles for fan club characters, since they're not really known outside the fandom (unless a lot more people read the appropriate pages on TFWiki and TV Tropes).
  • Internet memes, unless they're widely used outside the TF fandom.
  • Mentioning unofficial toys, like fan-products or knockoffs unless they were subject to a significant issue like a big time lawsuit by Hasbro, which is unlikely.
  • Having synopses for the more obscure fiction, like Blackthorne's 3D comic.

-NotARealWord (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be fully agreed on by the majority of editors whats Transformers cruft and what is not before proceeding. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course, that's what consensus is about. By the way, is there anything that I missed regarding my fancruft list? NotARealWord (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't think of anything you thought of more than I thought of I want a unanimous agreement before mass editing is done. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatly that will never happen as long as editor keep protecting fancruft like toylists. As I write, the Botcon toylist was reinstated. This what you get when you try to concend to fans who hold great value over fancruft. Boldness appears to be failing due to the heated debates between me and Ignash, here and here. What's left to be done here? Sarujo (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I feel the Botcon stuff needs to go as I have stated MANY TIMES its been proven to be unreliable info and fansites are not good sources. See: "Reliable sources for Transformers" Dwanyewest (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dwanyewest, as far as I can tell, BotCon-exclusive toys are listed at the official BotCon website. But really, that toy list was just fancruft. NotARealWord (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind is "how is the world outside of TF fandom affected by this?" If the answer is "not at all" cut it. Personally I'd

suggest only four articles: toyline, TV, comics, and movies. Each article would give a brief overview of how the property is presented in each medium. Really, how do the individual characters affect the wider world? Are they referenced by outside literature the way Greek mythology and Shakespearean characters are? All the details and all the minor characters are better presented in a specialty reference work, not a general encyclopedia. --Khajidha (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is most transformers toy info covered in Transformers (toy line). Plus most I think toys info should be removed unless it has third person info. I feel it under WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions (other incarnations)

I never really liked the various articles with the name (other incarnations) in them among the Transformer articles (example: Cliffjumper (other incarnations), but I didn't know what would be better. So I looked to other articles on versions of characters outside the main one. Batman, for instance, has an article called Alternate versions of Batman. Would this name style be better for Transformers titles? Something Alternate versions of Cliffjumper? If not this, maybe some other idea? I'd like other opinions on this. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That "Alternate versions" article is a list. I don't think it can work for Transformers due to the lack of a "main" TF continuity. NotARealWord (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Since there are so many TF articles at AfD, I've took the initiative and created a deletion sorting page for this project. IT also contains a CatScan link to find additional articles that are nominated for AfD or prodded. It's not an "official" deletion sorting page, but I'll leave it up to the project to decide to make it one and move the page to the appropriate place. —Farix (t | c) 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got a list of the deletion discussions that have popped up since late August this year at User:NotARealWord/Articles for Deletion. The list includes both ongoing and closed discussions. NotARealWord (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BotCon

There's some sort of dispute regarding the listing of BotCon toys over here. I really feel that article is too fancruft-y in some way, considering it got copied wholesale into Wikia's Transformers wiki NotARealWord (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Floro Dery

Before any of us really tries to get into bold editing, if that ever happens, I'd like to bring up Transformers character designer Floro Dery. If we manage to pull off a clean up, especially the Unicron article, we may have to deal with Dery or one of his devout fans. If anybody is up to date with what goes on at TFWiki.net, they should already be familar with Dery or whoever's attempts to give him more credit than he's is entitled to. As seen here, here, here, and here. This might be worth noting when coming up with development section with mentions Dery contributions to the character's designs after Shōhei Kohara. Any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Toy patents

I've located a lot the US patents for many of the G1 transformers on Google Patents.

Microman


Diaclone

Original

Unidentified

How can we use these with their development? Sarujo (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if they'll help here much, but those of us over at tfwiki.net thank you immensely for this. --Khajidha (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Glad I was able to help somewhere. But I'm disappointed that haven't found the others I wanted to find. Hot Rod, Rodimus Prime, Kup, Springer, Blur, Scourge, Cyclonus, and Galvatron. They've got to be available somewhere. Sarujo (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to organize several people at TFwiki to search the database, particularly focusing on cross referencing those you've already found. For example, several members of various subgroups are missing even though their teams are represented. Those should be referenced together somewhere. I'll let you know if we turn up anything more. --Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Great. Maybe they can Identify the ones I can't here, that I listed as unidentified, and there, that I overlooked.Sarujo (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive! --Khajidha (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Unidentified now identified. Taken from the above list, I added names.

Remove mention of F15 discussion?

There is currently talks on the page for the F-15 Eagle jet as to whether the use of F-15s for the Seekers (Starscream, etc) in Transformers is worthy of mentining. We need unbiased input on the issue here Talk:F-15_Eagle#Request_to_add_Transformers_reference Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This section has now been on the page for over ten months, and at the bottom of the linked section it says "Finally, this discussion reaches a conclusion", also written ten months ago. Yet it still claims it's "current". Shouldn't it be removed already? JIP | Talk 12:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Toys section keep or ditch

I think the toys section on Transformer characters section should go as I feel it falls under WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE any opinions?Dwanyewest (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree that a product list is a violation of WP:IINFO. Only products that have themselves received meaningful commentary or had an impact on other aspects of the character are worth keeping. --EEMIV (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, but only if it only goes as far as remove toy listing sections from character articles. This is a fiction based on a toyline, not the other way around, so articles about entire series, lines and sub-lines should still mention they're about toys. JIP | Talk 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Same here. This stuff is acting too much like a news bulletin. Some toys may be worth mentioning, like the originals for the first year transformers, some like Classics and Masterpiece to mention about a possible revamp. Yet still, any additional notable toy mentions should go under marketing. Sarujo (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say any toy that has some sort of reference should be included. and at the very least some mention be made of the toys (the have one or not, from what years it was released in what toy line, what it turns into), even if not every single one. Perhaps set up in a short paragraph format, not a list. Mathewignash (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A single paragraph. Toys are a very important part of Transformers, possibly more than any other major entertainment brand. The paragraph should be some overview instead of any detailed description. i don't think putting them under marketing is appropriate since the TV shows, comic books, etc. were meant to market the toys, not the other way around. Although there are some non-toy associated fiction, I don't think there has been a significant enough (to people outside the fandom) amount of "toys to promote/market fiction". NotARealWord (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That just it, not every toy came out before it's corresponding series. Some were just put into place cause the name sells. So we should treat toy like Alternators/Kiss Players Optimus with as much notability as the original toy? A toy that was put out because Japan needed to sell a Dodge Ram to a carcentric society. Many of these toys are there solely for marketing. Sarujo (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Um, notability affects existence of articles, content of articles depends on encyclopedic-ness. But, just mention toys generally like some represent TV show appearances, others reimagine the original form, some promote other merch (like the Sports Label figures), and some don't actually transform, etc. NotARealWord (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Right now it's just listed by release date. We say the name of the line, the size class and the name of the toy, then year of initial release. Can anyone suggest a better format? Also, there are lots of Patents files by Hasbro and Takara with drawings of the toys. These have public domain pictures, so technically we can use them freely. If any toy is notable enough to list, should the PD picture of it be included? Mathewignash (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If a toy is notable, it gets it's own article. To be mentioned on an article requires being encyclopedic. Anyway, here's my suggested format:

"Optimus Prime has received many, many different toys of varying sizes since the character's original Diaclone-derived action figure (which was itself rereleased multiple times). A number of the toys represent his form in the various media he has appeared in. Some others are directly based on his appearance in the original cartoon, such as the "20th Anniversary" figure that possesses greater articulation along with cartoon-accuracy compared to the original toy.

Besides various trucks, Optimus Prime has had action figures with various alternate modes, ranging from a cyborg gorilla to a sneaker. Some of the character's figures do not posses an alternate mode at all, such as the Revoltech and Robot Replicas figures (other examples may be used, but no more than three). Optimus Prime has also had non-posable figurines and non-transforming toys of his altmode."

(Copyleft-licensed or public domain pictures may be put in the section. A picture of several toys would be better than a picture of one or two. Don't copy pictures from fansites unless it is specifically stated that the pictures available are public domain or released under some sort of copyleft. )

Simply listing toy name,toyline, size class and release date isn't really helpful to people who don't really know what "Ultra", "Voyager", etc. actually mean. Since this is a general purpose encyclopedia, explaining the toys in general is much more appropriate than actually mentioning them specifically. If people want specific or in-depth information on something, they go to other websites. Putting links to tfu.info like the TFWiki pages is probably no good since they copy the bios straight from the packaging, which would be copyright infringement. NotARealWord (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that before Beast Wars, there wasn't such a thing as "size classes". The original Generation 1 toys were sized pretty much arbitrarily. JIP | Talk 05:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That was the kind of paragraph I was going for. Why is the Beast Wars gorilla being added? That was it's own character that was Prime's descendant, Optimus Primal. The bat was supposed to be the original Optimus. Sarujo (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean the Optimus Primal figure, I meant the Deluxe-sized TF:Cybertron figure, Jungle Planet Optimus Prime. That one actually was Prime and not Primal. Really, any examples can be used as long as they can show the ridiculous variety of Optimus Prime toys. NotARealWord (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The reason I've been against a toy section after retool is because the information is too brief and could weigh the articles down. Granted, it is worth noting certain toys, but it still comes off as how the character is marketed. Although Prime is based on a Japanese toy Battle Convoy, it's still stuff of development. Now days, the name pretty much sells itself. Are we forgetting that many toys don't have corresponding television and or radio series? Or how some of these toys were put out simply to promote something. Classics=Sony's anniversary DVD of the 1986 film, movie toys=Michael Bay series, War for Cybertron got figures after the game, the upcoming Prime series is only now after how long of a development time is now mentioning corresponding toys. So any toy released after 1984 is without a doubt a marketing device. Wait, that not fair, any toy after 1999 - maybe, is a marketing device. I will agree, the show and comics were glorified commercials. But, is every story in the franchise as such? Sarujo (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Calling all the toys or the fiction after a certain point marketing devices is a bit unfair, some toys didn;t originally tie in to any fiction but were picked up later (the 2006 Classics figures) and the other way around also happens, like the case with Straxus. There are also toys whose only fiction tie-ins were packaged with the toy, such as Alternity. So, a toy section wouldn't be too bad. NotARealWord (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfair, yet true as the whole thing is one big wheel. But even still the section may get an expansion tag asking to put stuff in there that just isn't there. I do agree that the franchise is tied to toys as in when you hear about another series you’ll immediately know that some figure aren't far behind. Yet the franchise also brings to mind machines and vehicles like cars, trucks, plains, trains and ships and even animals. So there's a history in all those things. I mean we have the story of Bumblebee no longer having a Beetle as his alt. mode because Germany doesn't want any of their things to be associated with war themes due to prolonged WWII sensitivity. To put more emphasis on the toys is like saying that the franchise has always been riding the toy's coattails. I still say that any notable post 1984 toy should be included as marketing. Marketing can refer to a plethora of things whether is be the books and cartoon are taking from the toys or vice verse. Masters of the Universe is also an example of a series that got it humble beginnings from toys then later the toys took cues from the TV and books. Don't know why I'm bringing it up since their articles aren't any of any value right now either. Sarujo (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what kind of balance is needed for the various sections? If the toys can't be a first level section (==Toys==), can't they be a second-level section under something else (===Toys===)? NotARealWord (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think my real argument should have been that headings in situations like this were redundant. As long as you give a paragraph on the notable toy, you're accomplishing the goal here. If you recall, when I wrote my Megatron notable toys summary I didn't use any heading, yet I feel like I accomplished my goal of spotlighting the more notable stuff released to the public. How a gun is not the only way to market the character to the consumer. Optimus, or "anybot" for that matter, can be addressed the same way. Any mention shows importance. I mean we're not going to add the mundane stuff toothbrushes, party goods, or candy knickknacks. Yet, I'm not too sure on subsections. If you really want to put "a lot" of emphasis on these toys than, oh say, Mega SCF and Mighty Mugs, then you might want the start of the paragraph to reflect as such. Something like:
"Like many transformers, transforming action figures have been a staple x. There have been numerous figures for various lines within the franchise produced by both Hasbro and Takara Tomy for well over x years. Each figure follows some physical guidelines to character’s own mythos or creates new ones that are exclusive to each series."
Then try going from there. Sarujo (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, is it okay if people copypaste your suggestions from this talk page without crediting you? NotARealWord (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, considering this the free encyclopedia, ehhh maybe. Then again things like that happening, it's kinda hard to get barnstars, DNKs, GA, and FA awards when you have no edit history in an article. Why, how much of mine you planing to use? Sarujo (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) I'll be the firstto admit I'm not a Transformers fan to a huge degree, and am not familiar with the toys. But why do these sections need to exist at all? Why are the toys notable enough to be included in the articles? Almost every Transformer article I've seen with these sections have a huge list of toys with absolutely no citations and masses of detail. They seem to be nothing but WP:Trivia and surely belong on TFWiki. What should be in these articles is verifiable and independently sourced information, not lists of toys. And the same applies to lists of appearances in comics as well. That all belongs in TFWiki, not here. Skinny87 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you people read what notability actually means?

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons

— Wikipedia, on what notability is about,, here

Really, toys are a very important part of Transformers, possibly more than almost any other major entertainment brand. Not mentioning the toys would be leaving out important details. Giving the toys their own section or subsection will not result in undue weight or fancruft if they're just explained generally. -NotARealWord (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What I'm implying in weigh down is the fact that the paragraph being too small to create a section or subsection. That's one of the things that can really determine the article's class and hold it from GA or FA. Sarujo (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think turning the articles into featured ones is a concern for later. Right now, we should decide on what information is important so we can remove fancruft. Really there's still some more articles on obscure TF characters that haven't been nominated for deletion and don't have a prod template yet. NotARealWord (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Still one has to have high goals for these articles if one wants to get somewhere. I'm looking at Optimus and Megatron as strong candidates for at least GA with all this fat cut out. There's a lot of lean there. Optimus has things like his death, the statue in China, the US soldier who legally changed his name. Megatron's got the trouble marketing him as a gun, his ranking as one of the greatest villains ever right behind Starscream. But still lets focus on getting rid of the crap first. Sarujo (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles nominated for deletion

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the articles nominated for deletion were chosen pretty much randomly? JIP | Talk 10:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you forgetting that many of the articles were sock nominated? Sarujo (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No. Many of the articles were nominated by User:Blest Withouten Match, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but there are many other nominations that I can't understand why just those articles were nominated. Some of the articles seem to have chosen just because they start with the letter B, but for some others, I can't understand the logic. Why were the Autobot Clones deleted but not their arch-enemies, the Decepticon Clones? Why was Silverbolt deleted but none of his four underlings? Why was Skullgrin the only one of the six original Decepticon Pretenders to be deleted? As far as I can see, the other Transformers I just mentioned are just as notable (or non-notable) as those that were deleted. JIP | Talk 10:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If you think the ones you mentioned are not notable, nominate them for deletion. NotARealWord (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they're non-notable enough for that. I didn't think that about the articles that were deleted either, but I decided not to vote in the AfD discussions, because I felt I would only be commenting as a Transformers fan and not be able to find the requested notability. In other words, I'm sort of indifferent about their notability. I only wrote the above comment to comment on why just those articles were chosen. JIP | Talk 11:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) As someone who's been voting in these AfDs (to delete most of them, to put that out there), I can't see a real pattern why they were nominated. However, I'm glad they were; most of the articles, apart from the big ones like Jazz, just don't have the notability needed for wikipedia. They really belong on TFWiki, where notability isn't needed as strictly. Might I suggest this project look through the articles under its purview and see if they are notable? Ie, if they have independent, reliable sources that confer independent notability? I suspect a large number of them, such as the ones mentioned above, would fail that test.

But to try and who I'm not just a rabid deletionist foaming at the mouth, this would have a point. Get rid of the articles that aren't notable enough for here, and you could start focusing on the notable ones that need real work. I'd love to see Optimus Prime or Megatron as a GA or even FA. And I think a good article on Jazz, without a lot of fancruft and filled with some analysis of how 'black' Transformers are portrayed, wouldn't be that difficult. Skinny87 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I never understood the idea that Jazz was "black" as a kid. He was a white car. How is that black? Trailbreaker and Skywarp are black. As for Jazz's character, it's not a stereotypical black man, it's Scatman as a car! I think people read too much into it. Look at Tigatron from Beast Wars (unless someone here deleted him already), he too was voiced by a black actor, but no one calls him "the black Maximal". Mathewignash (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, considering the ridiculous number of articles on TF characters and how some of them couldn't possibly have any notability, I'm pretty sure even an inclusionist would have voted for delete in some of them. Yeah, we should get rid of the non-notable ones to focus on the important TF characters. Also, TFWiki does usually have articles on the various named characters and even some unnamed ones. NotARealWord (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the ones I nominated for deletion were pretty muchwithout any system or order. But I don't nominate articles unless I truly believe they shouldn't be here. NotARealWord (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transformers/Archive_5&oldid=1150000963"